convince the city council to help us out with that. and is we're gaining better trust with the community, because we're addressing those concerns. >> thank you so much, chief. >> thank you. [applause] i'm sure after hearing our three panelists you have many, many questions. let me start off the questioning, and then we'll open it up to the floor. george, i remember back in i guess it was the '70s when daniel patrick moynihan wrote a piece called defining deviant behavior downward. people had signs if their car, "no radio," hoping no one would steal their eight-track or cassette player out of there. the theories behind broken window is not zero tolerance. is that correct, george, and can you explain why there's a difference there? >> yeah, zero tolerance, first of all, has been used as a term -- i'm glad you asked that question. watch how i twist the text to meet my answer. [laughter]

the term zero tolerance has been used as a pejorative term to criticize broken windows, and appropriately so. broken windows wasn't zero tolerance. zero tolerance, first of all, implies a zealotry about you will have no discretion. and the second thing is, it says you don't have any discretion which is exactly what we want to avoid which sets up a high arrest thing. but let me just talk about, zero tolerance can be a useful tool at times, at particular locations around particular problems. but you have to be very specific about that. think, for example, of just a very simple example, school buses. we simply understand that the risks of people passing school buses is so great and the consequence is so great that we don't want any discretion about that. we want to send out a message you pass a school bus that's discharging or getting children,

you're in deep, deep trouble. so -- and i could give you other examples of that. so zero tolerance is antithetical to the whole approach of broken windows. and then i want to just pick up on one thing that tom said which is very interesting. i am of a different generation. i came up in a different generation. but i'm still hanging around. but the interesting thing was, and this rang a bell when he raised this, the problem in the subway nownñó[yppzñ a very dift problem than it was. time our concern was minor offenders and getting them under control. now, there are still some aggressive panhandlers, still some stuff going on, but we can deal with that without too much trouble and without increasing the number of arrests. it turns out in the subway now are some very sad human beings. emotionally disturbed, very ill, and what we have is a whole difference approach. now, our concern is how do we

get the agencies who should own this problem to take over and own this problem as they should? because this is not a police problem. these individuals are not criminals. they're hardly even disorderly. i mean, they're laying on the ground -- where are the social service agencies? so my, as i work with bill again, part of my respondent is to get the other -- my respondent is to get the other agencies to meet their responsibility. so thank you for giving me the opportunity to twist your question. [laughter] >> professor, you know, when i went to police commissioner bratton's swearing in -- he's going to speak tomorrow morning -- he said there was two goals he had as police commissioner, one was to get the community to embrace the police department because of all their significant help, and also to get the members of the service to be proud of the work he found when he came back after 20 years the members of the new york city police department were not proud of their successes. could you speak a little bit about those two issues?

>> sure. well, i think it's true, and what commissioner bratton was talking about is a really us from rating point from the perspective -- frustrating point from the perspective of the police. here you've achieved these amazing, historic gains in safety, yet you're facing an angry community. and so the question we have to ask is, why? and what george said just a minute ago, there are different issues at different points in time, and if the level of fear of crime was the same today as it was in the 1970s, people might be focused on fear of crime. but the police are in some ways victims of their own success, and people feel more secure now, and they're looking for a different kind of relationship with the police. that's the bad news, but it's also good news because we know so much about how to create that kind of relationship. as chief tracy was saying, we have -- they have done a lot to

create it in chicago. so we know it can be done. the other part of it that's interesting is the question of the police officers. when i first started talking about these kinds of ideas, the whole point was the police want public cooperation. if you treat the public in a particular way, you get that cooperation. but in the different training academy programs that we put together, the officers would come in and say, well, no one ever treats me fairly; that is, i never get listened to, i never get anything explained to me, my supervisor doesn't care about my concerns. so you're telling me to do all these things for people on the street, and fun of those things happen -- none of those things happen to me. we have recognized that fair treatment is also something that needs to be inside the internal dynamics of police departments. and this speaks to officer dissatisfaction because we know now, we've done research on the internal dynamics of police

departments, job satisfaction, job performance, what's the main factor that drives the way the police feel and what they do? it's whether they think that they get fair treatment within the context of their own police department. so both of these issues are issues that we can address. unfortunately, we know a lot more about how to address them. >> chief, you're not off the hook. one of the things that you speak about is the principles that you've adopted and the procedures you've put in place in both new york and chicago are very successful in combating violent crime. since we've been so successful, a lot of us now are dealing with crimes i don't want to say we didn't have the luxury of dealing with before, but we can address now. we have identity thefts and fraud, the cases that we are now investigating. some of the strategies, the come stat, those things that you put in place in new york and chicago, can they be used for some of these newer crimes at your department and other departments are now having to deal with?

>> yes, absolutely. and just, i just want to answer the internal legitimacy real quick. i didn't hit on that, the meritocracy of changing the politicization of the chicago police department helps out with the internal legitimacy, because we have done those surveys of officers, and there's still a belief that you have to know someone to get promoted. and that's not the place. and we're trying to build that. we're slowly -- we've been there three years, but the meritocracy put in place is going to go a long way, internal legitimacy first is going to help us with our experience legitimacy. but getting back to what we can do -- listen, we still have a long way to go in chicago. it's just the tip of the iceberg. we do have the luxury to look at some of these other crimes as we're reducing the shooting victims and the murders, but that's our main priority, and we're supplementing with these other strategyings. we've had an opportunity, some of the districts that we go into, you know, not all of them are the violent areas, and we're able to look at some of the lower level crimes that are

affecting these people in these neighborhoods. that's their biggest priority. with dna testing, burglaries, the way we can recover prints now, we can identify some of these burglars' dna with sexual assaults. we've come a long way, and we want to make sure that we give a good look, we insure that we're not letting those things go with the new technology. we're training people, and we're making sure that we're the best trained police department as best we can be to address these crimes and make sure that we stay with technology. and when we see a slide in that, when we -- i call it low hanging fruit, you've got a print and you know who the burglar is, or you have dna and you know who that person is, send the fugitive out immediately, and we go after these people to pick them up as quickly as possible. we can get ahead of it with the technology, and they're identifying bad guys that you want to get them as quick as possible because they usually don't stop at one. especially with robbery, burglaries, criminal sexual

assaults. >> thanks. george? >> let me just add one thing. a lot of chiefs are running scared, however, and this is personally to counter what tom said. and that is, if you have a thousand murders and a ten increase during the year, you've got a 1% increase, big deal. if you've got a hundred murders and you get ten additional, you have a big increase. a lot of cheechs, there's this -- a lot of chiefs, there's this feeling amongst chiefs, and i would be interested whether district and other kinds of attorneys are feeling this as well, and that is that maybe our gains are fragile, they might be easy the lose, the media are going to be eager to pounce on them when we do. and so it's hard to back away from tactics that might seem extremely, let me use the term aggressive, to deal with the serious crime. and this is especially the case because violence, homicide has been so the sticky in so many

communities in so many neighborhoods. >> we have some folks with some microphones in the audience if anybody has any questions for any of our panelists. come on, you've had an hour to think of one. [laughter] >> the -- [inaudible] comment on the training that's going on in washington state on moving from a warrior model to a more guardian model and what you all think about that? >> anyone want to take that one? >> if i knew anything about it, i'd try it. [laughter] >> you expand on it? what type of training we're talking about? articulate a little more? >> yeah. they're changing the law enforcement training from being kind of warrior, military model to more kind of focus in on guardian, empathy, try iing to, essentially, bring some social work practice into the law enforcement a little bit. >> i think that that approach -- which i don't specifically know anything about -- seems consistent with what we're saying about trying to do more

to communicate to the public a reassuring presence of the police to build cooperative relationships with public. so it sounds like it's consistent with what's happening in a lot of departments. we're seeing the police being much more interested if having a cooperative -- in having a cooperative relationship and trying to be the kind of presence that doesn't frighten people, but rather, reassures them. which, again, i would say is very consistent with a broken windows approach about the goal of policing. >> i think just to comment about that too, the old model of training used to be the preemptive use of confrontation, net and aggressiveness, and that is -- threat and aggressiveness. and that is take command of a situation. command presence. i think that has, that starts out -- the entrance of an interaction between a citizen and a police officer if it starts out with that kind of confrontation, it's going to go downhill from there, and especially with youth. and i think this is part of the new training that's coming up in that you don't have to start out

with preemptive use of aggressiveness. >> and if situation warrants it -- the situation warrants it, you do have to take control of the situation, but deescalate it. once you have everything under control, bring it down, tell the people why you stopped them, give them that respect, and that's what we're trying to train. as police officers, we know every situation's dangerous, so we have to take corral of it, but -- control of it, but immediately deescalate as soon as you have it under control. >> quick question. there have been some remarkable progress in terms of policing, bringing research and, you know, crime analysis and problem-warranted policing, chief tracy, you talked about some of those issues as well as the community policing approach all coming at the same time with broken windows. but one of the challenges, how do you actually apply that to the officer on the street when

the kind of day day-to-day activity tends to be the random control, car patrol and also for the officers their metrics tend to be very much kind of output rather than outcome focused. how many stops, how many arrests, how many citations, c summons and the rest. >> let me just clarify, a beat officer is in a car, not walking the beat. that would be foot patrols. they control a certain geographical area. in the beginning we talked about disbanding these specialized units, and actually, we still have discretionary resources at area levels. so we didn't take that discretionary resource away. we just reduced it and put more of the deployment within the districts taking down the calls for service and actually giving them more resources, keeping the guys and gals in the same geographical area of responsibility. having that supervision to

insure that they stay there, that's going to help them out a lot because there's less call for service. and at the same time, they're really not -- we really don't measure them by how much activity we have. we actually measure them what type of crime has happened and what are they doing to address it. i mean, if we're having drinking, what are we doing about administrative notice of violations to correct that behavior? what are we doing about if we have robbery suspects? what are we doing, are we stopping the people at the right place at the right time for the right reasons? so when we look at the metrics, we also look at metrics to make sure they're on base, they're not just gives us numbers because that's what we're looking for. we're doing stop, question and frisk, the burglars are out there at 8:00 to midnight, 8 p.m. to mid nierkts but they're doing all the stop and frisk at 8 a.m. to 12 noon, that's the wrong time to be doing it. our measurements are focused on the conditions and doing it at the right time. so we've allowed a more proactive police work, and we've

pushed that accountability down to the commanders so they're not waiting for centralized direction, but we look to see them -- they have, they have deployment tailored to their needs, and we give them the resources, but we also give them the authority to go out and address those conditions. and i think that's how we're measuring it, and that's where we're seeing our success. >> it is true that a really important issue has been identifying other kinds of metrics. so police chiefs are encouraged to give awards to people who build good community relations or have them be officer of the month or do surveys so that they can tell which officers have unhappy customers, basically, which officers have districts where there are complaints. and, you know, try to diversify the metrics for evaluation. because it is an issue that comes up that officers who are good at other things feel that they're not necessarily getting the attention of someone who makes a lot of arrests. that can all be fixed at a command level, as chief tracy is saying.

>> anyone else? >> it sounds like the, at least the main argument that's being advanced for the reduction in crime rates is the public perception of procedural fairness. could you talk more about the causal link between those two things? >> well, i wouldn't want to try to claim credit as the maybe force reducing time -- [laughter] but thank you. [laughter] i think that the argument is that over time there are several ways in which building up trust can be valuable. one, it's very clear that people who view the police support the law as more legitimate are less likely to commit crimes. so as we build a community where people believe in the legitimacy of law enforcement, that has a long-term effect on the crime

rate because people aren't committing crimes. that's true both for people in general and also for people with a criminal history. chief tracy talked about a program that's actually being done in chicago with people who are violent gun offenders coming out of prison, and we can see reductions in recidivism when people are given a form of treatment that creates a more legitimate sense of law s. so that's one way. but i think other really is the david kennedy approach, the andrew pap kris toss approach, make it clear even in violent communities a very small group of people are actually committing most of the violence. so if you can gain the trust of the general community, you can ask that community to help you to isolate and confront those people. and that's a strategy that's been successful in a lot of cities to, and chief tracy laid out what you're doing. but basically, you're trying to use the community as a resource to identify those people, to

help you isolate them. so that's legitimacy as a broader resource in the community. and i think both of those things are helpful in fighting crime. but i would, i mean, there are a lot of factors involved in fighting crime, but that's one factor that has definitely been shown to be important. >> this idea of a small number, they're referred to in the literature and i'm sure you know this, the 5 or 6%ers. and that is a very small amount of fenders commit offenses. the most interesting thing identify run into lately is this holds for traffic offenders as well. there's a strong correlation between areas of collision and high levels of crime. if you, if you overlay one on the other -- which, again, suggests a target or an approach that could be very successful but would also be prone to

misuse. and a point that i want to make with broken windows or whatever we're talking about, all of these strategies or tactics i would use instead, all of these tactics are powerful tools that, if wisely used, can get you enormous benefit. but at the same time, they can with used in very negative ways as well, so they have to be used very, very judiciously. it would seem to me when you talk about stop, question and frisk, i would want to see a department's guidelines for how are you managing, how are you getting officers thinking about this? because it is important that these things be done right because if they're not, you run into the issues that tom was talking about. and even when you're aggressive, you'll hear bratton tomorrow. he won't tell this story, but there's a wonderful scene -- [laughter] there's a wonderful scene in which you see they're going to bust down a door to arrest somebody for some reason. and they've got, and they got the special unit there, and they look highly military, and

they're getting ready to in. and all the neighbors, of course, are around watching. and all of a sudden the camera focuses on this guy walking around shaking people's hand. and there's bill bratton going out as chief, explaining to the residents what's going on, why they're doing this, why is it important. and at one point you see a guy talking to bill and then pointing at another house down the block, providing information. once you do this house, if you want to go down the block and do that house -- [laughter] be our guest. so there are ways even when you have to be terribly aggressive because of risk and danger, it seems to me there are ways to communicate that you're doing this on behalf of a community, not to the community. and it seems to me that's the big issue that police have to confront. >> before we get to the next question, for the remainder of the event if you, when you're speaking your question, let us know your name and the

organization or the office that you represent. thank you. and i think we have a question over here. >> george burnett, oklahoma attorney general's office. public perception of police shooting seems to have gotten volatile in the last few years, more than ever before. how about the prosecutor's role in making decisions in those cases and conveying those decisions to the public. >> well, what we try to do is immediately after the a police shooting there's going to be per is sense out there, there's going to be rumor on how it happened. we have a call list immediately. we get to the clergy, we get to the elected officials, we get to community organizers, and we let them know exactly what happened as quickly as possible so they can help disseminate the information of what transpired. and not let rumor and, actually, public perception. we get ahead of that to insure that they foe the real story -- today know the real story, and we're very transparent. that goes a long way. when it goes to the prosecutor,

i think i would have to hand that over to ticket attorney donovan. but that's how we get ahead of it immediately. one thing happens, and each police department's different how you investigate those shootings. we have an independent police review authority. what actually takes it out of our hands in chicago, and they take the investigation over immediately. so it's very tough for us to get the official word out because it goes to another authority, but we actually get the underlying message out to community leaders to make sure they can get the message out to their people on what transpired. and if we can -- as much information as possible that wouldn't compromise the case. >> but it's also having trust in the bank. and that is, you have a longstanding relationship that people are willing to give grow benefit of the doubt initially, and then as you're transparent, i'm glad that word was finally used here, because it seems to me that's one of the key ingredients ought to be of let me call it new policing. that is, it's transparent. there's very little in policing that really has to be secret.

i mean, a good share of the secrecy was just to keep people away and to remain remote and, quote-unquote, professional. >> and on top of the transparency, our crime statistics -- and i know other departments do this -- we're very open to. we put it right up on our welcome back sites. we make sure our public information officer gets those foia requests, and if press -- times we'll givings in about foy -- give informs without foia". today actually just cut and paste our stories, some of the -- some reporters that don't have to work as hard can just cut and paste -- [laughter] can cut and paste their police blog right off our public information and put it out to the public. so sometimes we help drive perception, but we want to be as transparent as possible, and we need to be that way. >> he said it about the media, it wasn't me. [laughter] >> well, it is true that most discussions with police chiefs bashing the media becomes a

topic that everyone's gleeful about. and there may be very good reasons for that. but the other side of it is that a lot of police chiefs have become much more proactive, and they've realized that the thing you need to do is to get ahead of it where you build up these relationships with the community, you develop channels for information dissemination so that people are used to knowing what's going on in your department, they are given explanations for ongoing activities. why are we doing these things, what's the goal. as george said, why is this being done on behalf of the community? then when there is a problem, there's already a basis for people to understand and be appreciative of what the police are trying to do. those have been very effective, and they've been amazing in how ingenious people have been. people have much more media savviness than i do about twitter accounts and e-mail networks and community newsletters and all kinds of

ways to get a group of people together with a cop instant flow of -- constant flow of information so that they can understand was happening. and when there is a negative event, it falls into a context of ongoing relationship. >> as far as prosecutors go, i think most of us, any police shooting, we put that in a grand jury. and even though that is a secretive process, there's 23 people in new york that are deciding whether this shooting was a rightful shooting or not. and not just the district, but the police department. so i think that gives a vote of confidence. one of the things that makes it a little bit more difficult now with iphones and videos and everything else, no one actually captures the shooting on video, they just capture the aftermath. and the aftermath always looks so horrible. and that's what the media's grabbing, that's what's starting the 6:00 news at night, that little clip of video that somebody got on their iphone that looks like the police are coming upon these communities and infiltrating them, and someone got shot, everything else. a lot of thing that is the

police department has to combat is that. and some of the things that we as prosecutors have to combat is what's this perception that doesn't capture the whole scenario. we good? everybody gets the early credits? we're done. thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> we're now going to take a quick 15 minute break, so if everybody wants to go get refreshments, be back here promptly at 11:15. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

knox. [inaudible conversations] >> the national association of

attorneys general and the national district attorneys association hosting the first day of tear two-day symposium on crime reduction. live coverage here on c-span2. a as you may have heard, the organizers now taking about a 15 minute break. when they resume, we'll hear a panel discussion on the collateral consequences of criminal convictions and the impact on recidivism rates. l also a look at what some state legislatures are doing to address the issue. also here in washington today the senate will be returning at two eastern with work this afternoon on several of president obama's nominees including nancy more ritz to be a judge on the tenth circuit court of appeals and peter selfridge as chief of protocol at the state department. watch live coverage here on c-span2 when members gavel back in today at two eastern. while we wait for this symposium on crime reduction to resume, we'll show you remarks

from attorney general eric holder who kicked things off at the event this morning. he spoke for about 15 minutes. >> good morning. >> morning. >> and you're right, j.b., we've got to stop meeting in those back rooms, you know? i want to thank attorney general van hollen for that kind introduction. it sounds almost like i can't hold a job the way he described all those things. [laughter] and also for your leadership as president of the national association of attorneys general. i'd also like to recognize district attorney henry garza for his service as president of the national district attorneys association. and i want to thank the leadership teams, the professional staffs and the dedicated members of both organizations for the really outstanding work that you perform every day and for all that you've done to bring us together for this really important symposium on the reduction of crime. now, as staunch advocates for the rule of law and as champions of the cause of justice that drives the efforts of local

prosecutors and state authorities across america, you are two really remarkable organizations that have for decades provided ip dispensable leadership -- indispensable leadership and guidance if advancing our dialogue about criminal justice issues. through the work of the national attorneys general training and research institute for important events just like this one and through gatherings like this one and the conferences that i attended earlier this year, you routinely bring innovators, public servants and law enforcement leaders together to address what are the really most pressing public safety challenges of our time. ..

the most difficult and divisive issues need not break down along partisan lines. disagreements are inevitable whenever passionate people confront questions of this magnitude. but we are showing that vigorous debate is not only healthy commonsense makes our work stronger and more effective because we're all responding to the same realities. we all share similar priorities and we come together in pursuit of the very same goal. reducing crime, holding individuals responsible for their actions, protecting the american people and improving criminal justice outcomes. especially in recent years,

these common aims have led us to find common ground and take meaningful steps forward on a range of efforts to recalibrate crime-fighting policies and practices. new actions and initiatives have risen from innovative federal, state and local partnerships. these collaborations have been pioneered by leaders from across the political spectrum and they are driven by the recognition and the broad-based consensus that we have both the responsibility and the opportunity to make our criminal justice systems more fair, more efficient and more effective than ever before. the importance of these efforts and urgent need for action on the historic changes we're working to bring about was really brought into sharp focus by a landmark study that was released just last week by the national academy of sciences national research council. this new report was funded by

the national institute of justice as well as by the macarthur foundation. its findings were based upon a comprehensive nonpartisan, independent examination of on incarceration rates in the united states over the past four decades, over the past 40 years. as this study makes clear, the rise in imports ration that we witnessed over that period was, and i'm going to quote, historically unprecedented and internationally unique, unquote. the current rate of imprisonment in the united states is roughly five to 10 times greater than incarceration rates of other democracies, and this shockingly high rate has resulted in extreme disparate racial impacts and devastating consequences for already disadvantaged community including afflicted urban areas into bumbling minority communities. these conditions have been shown to contribute to family instability, to high unemployment as well as to low wages. they often correlate with high

rates of poverty and serious public health concerns and they not only feed, they exacerbate the vicious cycle of poverty, of criminality and incarceration that traps too many individuals and the state's entire communities. the nsa reports principal conclusion was that u.s. policymakers at every level must take steps to reduce incarceration rates by making targeted reforms to criminal justice policy, including sentencing in prison reforms in order, in addition to broader social policy changes. these recommendations are entirely consistent with the work that's under way through the justice department's smart on crime initiative which i launched last summer to improve the federal system at every level as efforts be led by many of you. the study finds also catalogued the reality is that so many of us see every day as we thrive through this crime and jurisdictions that we serve.

they illustrate that the cost of our nation's overreliance on incarceration are far too high to bear, and they show the increased incarceration rates and excessive prison terms imposed these costs without materially improving public safety, without significantly reducing crime, and without concretely benefiting our nation in a meaningful way. fortunately the leaders in this room are not only uniquely qualified to guide our national conversation on these issues, you are also empowered to make a lasting positive difference by advocating for the proposals that you believe in, by calling for reforms to improve the lives of our fellow citizens and by implementing strong and tested policies that could move our country forward. with new reentry and diversion programs like drug, mental health and veterans groups, we can keep people out of prison

and help them successfully rejoin their committee. with new safety measures and the careful and appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion we can ensure the punishments are fair and are proportional to the conduct at issue in every case. with the support of a broad new coalition of experts, community leaders, law enforcement officials and other stakeholders we can conserve resources. we can improve public safety and bring our system in line with our societies interest in our nation's highest ideals. many of you are already showing i think tremendous leadership in this regard. in recent years a total of 17 states, 17 states supported by the justice department reinvestment initiative and led by state officials again from both parties have directed significant funding away from prison constructconstruct ion and towards evidence-based programs like supervision and drug treatment that are proven to reduce recidivism while improving public safety.

i'm pleased to note that rather than increasing costs from one report by the bureau of justice assistance projects that these 17 states will save $4.6 billion over a 10 year period. and although the full impact of these policies remains to be seen, it's evidence that the already show significant promise. they should be studied. they should be emulated and we must continue to support this kind of innovation to expand on proven strategies and to reinforce the robust federal, state and local partnerships that can amplify our individual successes. at the federal level our smart on crime initiative that is bringing about major shifts in charges, and sentencing and incarceration and reentry and executive clemency policy. last year under this initiative i take steps to ensure that the stringent mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug-related crimes will not --

will now be reserved for the most serious criminals. defendants accused of low-level, nonviolent drug offenses will face senses befitting their individual conduct rather than penalties that are more appropriate for violent traffickers or drug kingpins. i also ordered a renewed focus on prisoner reentry and diversion in all 94 over u.s. attorneys offices. i have been encouraged to see more and more leaders from, again, from both parties to afford to take up the cause to help ensure our criminal justice system is used to punish, deter, and rehabilitate. and not merely to wear hats as they forget. earlier this year i was proud to be joined by senator rand paul in calling for state and local leaders to restore voting rights to those who have served their prison terms in jail or prison, completed her parole or probation and paid their fines. i urge each of you to take at this site when you return home

because the free exercise of our most fundamental rights should never be subject to politics or geography or i think the lingering effects of flawed policies. i also ask you to join me in working with congress to advance commonsense legislation like the bipartisan, i want to emphasize, the bipartisan smarter sentencing act which would give judges additional discretion in the coming sentences for people convicted of certain federal drug crimes. as a nation we pay far too high a price in terms human, economic and even moral whenever our system fails to deliver the just outcomes that are necessary to deter and punish crime, to keep us safe and to ensure that those who have paid their debts have the chance to become productive citizens. this is why in addition to calling for legislative remedies, the justice department is doing important work to restore justice, fairness and proportionality to those currently involved in our criminal justice system through an approved and an expanded

approach to the executive clemency process. two weeks ago the deputy attorney general james cole announced new criteria that the department will consider when recommending clemency applications for the president's review. this will allow the department and the white house and also the president to consider additional applications from deserving individuals who do not pose threats to public safety. we anticipate receiving an influx of really thousands of clemency applications as a result of these changes. we are committed to devoting the time, the resources and the personnel necessary to ensure that each one receives the full attention and the rigorous scrutiny that it deserves. at the same time as the national academy of sciences report makes crystal clear, we must also increase our efforts to identify and to confront disparities at every stage of the criminal justice process. with this goal in mind at my

direction, a team of more than a dozen u.s. attorneys, known as the racial disparities working group, is currently examining sentencing disparities and developing recommendations on how we can address them. the department is launching a new national center for building community trust and going forward this center will enable us to explore, to advance, to assess and to disseminate information about strategies intended to enhance procedural justice, reduce implicit and strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and communities of color. now, my colleagues and i will never stand idly by as isolated acts of discrimination harness the outstanding work that is performed by the overwhelming majority of america's law enforcement officers every day in this country. i have been encouraged to see organizations like naag and in the a and many of your members take steps to make good on this

commitment by a strengthening committee outreach by broadening engagement and by bringing citizens and law enforcement officials together to end the era of suspicion and distrust. going forward, this work must continue to grow. we need to keep extending the reach and impact of these other efforts across the board. because finding new savings and efficiencies will allow us to invest in innovative crime reduction strategies focusing on diversion and successful reentry will boost neighborhood of safety and it will forge stronger families and communities. improving sentencing policies, standing -- expanded justice for investment and confronting racial disparities will save taxpayer money. it will restore faith in her justice system and it will build trust in law enforcement. and taking a comprehensive view of crime challenges and a holistic approach to addressing them will enable justice professionals to enlist new allies confronted the root causes of the problems they see

our communities rather than just responding to individual symptoms. now, we convened this morning in a unique and i think perhaps unprecedented moment of promise, at a time of innovation and potentially, potentially broad consensus with our national debate, our professional experiences and the very latest in cutting-edge research has cast the challenges we face in very stark relief. this is a time for thoughtful discussion to give way to principled action. this is a time for 21st century problems to be met with 21st century solutions. and this is a time when policymakers from opposite ends of the political spectrum have laid aside their differences and resolve to stand together in the recognition the crime reduction is a goal that knows no ideology. public safety is a cause far greater than short-term partisan games. countless lives of promising futures hang in the balance so

the need for robust collaboration and series reform is as urgent as ever. as we seize this important moment, as weeks have the opportunities now before us and as we renew our determination to move aggressively in combating violence and reducing crime i want you to know that i'm proud to count you as allies and has friends. i'm confident in where our collective effort and leadership of america's state attorneys general and local prosecutors can take us from your. i want to thank you all once again for the chance to take part in this very important symposium. thank you very much. [applause] attorney general eric holder spoke at this event earlier today being hosted by finesse association of attorneys general and the national district attorneys association. the next panel just getting

under way. live coverage on c-span2. >> i find that to be unusual. we have another great panel for you here again. i think the last panel was certainly something that we have to live up to, but knowing the panelists on this what i think we're in pretty good shape. the contents of the band will be introduced by our moderator. however, it's my distinct pleasure to introduce our moderator for this panel on the collateral consequences and how they affect recidivism. attorney general, colleague of mine for many, many years, the attorney general of colorado. he decided since i'm not run for reelection he was going to either because he couldn't stand to work in any capacity not as my colleague anymore in the future to give that or he was term limited. i don't know which one it was. but anyway -- >> we have worked together for years. earlier in his career he was ahead of the colorado department of corrections.

after that our career paths started to parallel antisurface district attorney in colorado in an area covering colorado springs where he continues to lead. he then went on to serve starting in 2004 as the united states attorney for the district of colorado which is where we first had met in that capacity. and then, of course, when he ran for attorney general, i decided of course i wanted to do that -- that's what he did in 2004 was attorney general. he was u.s. attorney before that. when he ran for attorney general in 2004 i thought i'd better do the same celebrities in 2006. he is truly served in many different capacities of law enforcement at all the different levels, and so i think he's those been a tremendous moderate of our panels, largely because of that but largely because of his commitment to the cause and he is even written a book on the subject. i'm going to do what you a little bit, johnny. i'm sure he will sell them to for the small fee of 89 -- never

mind. i will turn it over to john to introduce the next panel. >> thank you. appreciate it very much. folks, this panel is on the collateral consequences of criminal convictions and the impact of those collateral consequences on recidivism rates. collateral consequences as we know are the additional sanctions specific mandated by state statutes attached to come convictions that are not part of the direct consequences of the conviction but incarceration fines and/or probation. they are the first -- further so the consequent is triggered as a consequence of the conviction. in general all states impose these collateral consequences. they include but are not limited to loss or restriction of professional licenses, ma and eligibility for public funds including public welfare benefits, public housing and student loans. loss of voting rights, in

eligibility for jury duty, and a big one in colorado is loss of hunting privileges. and deportation of immigrants. while collateral consequences have always accompanied criminal convictions in the united states, their number and impact expanded dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s. collateral consequences has recently garnered increased attention because of the record number of individuals now exiting u.s. threshold facilities and returning to kennedys across the country. the numerous collateral consequences that attach to convictions are perceived as frustrating reintegration for both individuals and for communities. many maintain that collateral consequences are a very to successful reentry permit of interest. while many nations impose collateral consequences on individuals with criminal records, most such restrictions appear less severe than in the united states. for the most part courts have

held that the failure to advise a defend of potential collateral consequences does not give rise to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and the court advised of collateral consequences is not constitutionally required. only the collateral consequences -- has made an acceptance to this general rule by the united states supreme court. there's considerable discussion in several circles about legislative reducing the collateral consequences are providing opportunities for waivers or exemptions from them. so hopefully that will set the stage for i believe will be a very interesting discussion. we have three distinguished panelists with us today. immediately to my left is the director of cornell university's labor and employment law program. she develops forms and covers on critical and evolving labor and employment will issues and teaches in both ithaca in new york city. a graduate of cornell and

georgetown university law center, she began her career as the field attorney with the nlrb. she then moved to offer washer represented unions in all phases of labor law and represented claimants and title vii litigation. returning to public servants she was the deputy director and general counsel of new york city's bureau of labor services which enforce the equal employment opportunity requirements for city contracting. she is a member of the new york city bar association, labor employment committee, american bar association section of labor and employment law and the new york state bar association. she was the 2006 recipient of the alys cohen and constant coke award for commitment to women's issues and for improving climate for women. thanks for joining us. appreciate it very much. scott burns was elected prosecutor and i account the utah for 16 years before being

selected by president george w. bush in 2000 due to serve as the deputy drug czar at the white house, upon leaving the white house in 2009 mr. burns was selected as the executive director of the national district attorneys association here can after five years recently relinquished that position to return to his native utah to practice law. mr. burns has received numerous awards and honors for his work as a prosecutor, has been a fierce advocate of victims rights, and a natural spokesperson path of america's 20,000 prosecutors. thanks for joining us. prior to his appointment, as attorney general mike was a partner in an anchorage law firm. he began working at the firm in 1979 with a practice devoted to litigation and appeals before state and federal courts. he acted as lead counsel in civil and criminal law matters as was proceeding before osha, the alaska state commission on human rights and your land

commission. born and raised in fairbanks, his private practice focus on areas and industries reflecting alaska's growth and history including natural resources, oil and gas and construction. he's been involved in numerous complex cases including class actions in antitrust. in 2005 he was appointed by the governor to serve alaska as a uniform law commission for the national conference of on uniform state laws. in 2007 he was honored by his peers when you see the alaska bar association board of governors professionalism award in recognition of exemplary conduct in association with the public, his colleagues in the legal community. in 2011 he was elected to the fellows of the american bar foundation, in recognition of outstanding dedication to one of the of the committee, conditions of the profession and advance the objectives of the american bar association. general garrity received his undergraduate degree in

political science from university of hawaii and the graduated with a jd cum laude from university of santa clara. general garrity and his wife have lived in anchorage for 30 years and they have five children. we are going to have the same form as we did in the last panel, each panelist will speak for approximate 10 to 15 minutes and then i will pose some questions and we will open up to the audience for questions. >> good morning, everyone. i can't tell you how thrilled i am to be here, but i do feel a little bit like i am a duck out of water. as the only employment lawyer on the panel and perhaps the only labor employment lawyer in the room, it's a little intimidating. let me say that i grew up in new york city. i not take the subway all by

myself at night. [laughter] yes, somebody back there went like yes. thank you. i take the subway by myself at night, but i have been the victim of being mugged twice and having my house broken into twice. i live in brooklyn. i'm always very worried when my sons are out late at night. i come to the subject having been a traditional labor and employment lawyer but when he moved over to sure one of the things that became of interest to me was the use of social science research in labor and employment law. and how this come together. how to use research and how do sociologists, and dutch organization psychologist use what they see happening in the legal profession for the research that they do? so this is where i come from. when i think about this topic of

collateral consequences and recidivism, the first thing you think of is a hydra. this is only pieces to the positive resort would have races commission. we have fear. with negligent hirings pic. we have drug addiction. we have my favorite topic, employment, crime, alexi t. but i look at all this through the lens as an employment lawyer. in employment will want to know is what criminal records are being used as a selection device. does this selection device, is a job-related? isn't related to the job to be done and can the employer show a business necessity? so those are the hallmarks of how i think about this issue. when i think about criminal records, and i've read extensively, i've done many conferences, i've talked to many scientists who studied the issue, it appears we all begin to think about someone with a criminal record as they are all the same, but somehow the crimes

are not different. it's the record and the record only that we think about. people refrain from engaging in criminal activity as many different reasons as people get into it perhaps. what we do know is that nearly two-thirds of people who are released from prison served for nonviolent offenses, including drugs, 37%, and property 25%. some people have been clean for 10, 20 and 30 years, and somehow we act when we look at collateral consequences as how long they had been clean is irrelevant. but their debt to society has never been paid. so a forever rule is in place. and i came here to argue that a forever rule is not always appropriate. i'd like to put a space on this for you if you give me a few minutes, and i bring up the case of darrell langdon. his story was told in the howard long review in 2011.

he in 2010 had just been turned down for a job as a boiler room engineer in the chicago public schools. under state law that said anyone who had a truck conviction could not work in the public school system. he had been convicted in 1985 of a drug conviction for possession of cocaine, a relatively minor amount of cocaine and had gotten a court order leaving him -- relieving, but still the chicago public school system refused to hire him. in 85 he was caught with a half gram of cocaine and sentenced to six months probation at what was interesting about this was that he worked for the chicago public school system at the time, didn't lose his job, and in 1988 they sent him to an employee assistance program. it was a turning point in his life. he became a responsible family man, respected member of his community and to continue to work for the chicago public

school system until 1995 when there was restructuring in the system and he with many others were laid off. for the next 13 years he worked in his own mortgage business doing real estate and other real estate turned down. and then he decided he needed another job. he got a job in a hospital working as a building engineer, but wanting to make more money and wanting to -- one of the benefits of school systems could provide he reapplied for that job. he had been sober for over two decades. he had raised two sons as a single parent and he had no further problems with the law. he was interviewed three times. he was honest on his application about his conviction. they tested him for the skills of being an engineer, and just as he was about to be hired he was told he was ineligible for employment because of the provision in the illinois school code prohibiting people convicted of a long lost crime, including felony drug

conviction. so it's that lame dens of the world that i want to you i am very, very concerned about. -- darrell langdon's of the world. we know race plays a role. the eeoc when it issued its guidelines on hiring people's criminal records in 2012, and if you all know the statistics i apologize, about one and 17 white men are expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. one in six hispanic men, and one in three african-american men. african-americans and hispanics are incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their numbers in the population. in 2010, black men had an improvement rate that was nearly seven times higher than white men come at almost three times higher than hispanic men. so we have a large population that has a criminal record. we have a population that needs to be served.

in my colleagues and i view, employment is one of the most important places where someone can gain a sense of confidence, a sense of responsibility and can continue on into law abiding way. in 2003, there was a study in which they wanted to look at how employers look at hiring someone with a criminal record. she did a very interesting study involving entry-level positions for the job. i can go into how the study was done later, if anybody's interested, but it involves applying for job and call back. everyone who was in this study was well trained, rescinded themselves exactly the same way, however some of the resume said they had a criminal record and some did not. there were white, black and hispanic. she discovered a criminal record purse everyone. 34% of the whites apply for these entry-level jobs without a

criminal record received callbacks, but only 17% of whites with a criminal record, a 50% drop in the number of people called back. employers are more likely to call back a white applicant with a criminal record 3.4 times more over a black person with a criminal record. and significantly whites with criminal records were called back more often than african-americans with no criminal records. very hard to get a job that way. in general, and certainly when you have a criminal record. prison we know is often a revolving door, the pew study indicated that between 43 and 45%, almost half returned to prison in the first three years, often technical violations of parole rather than new crimes. so if people don't go back, what can we do to encourage an increase their employment?

people age out of crime. we do know that research shows that there is a decrease of risk for a rest over time, depend on the type of crime, whether it be property, drugs or violence. after a while you get too old to do many of the things that are involved in crime. i have those statistics if anybody is interested. approximately 1.5 million people reside in american prisons, and 700,000 are released each year. we talked earlier today about the third in prison population since 1970, the air of mass incarceration and the war on drugs. over 7 million people are part of an overall correctional population that includes people who are on probation and parole. one in four adults has a criminal record. we know spin as the country over $70 billion on an incarceration costs, housing, feeding, guarding people are really not

contributing to our economy. a very recent study of 40 states found that the average yearly cost of incarcerating one person is about $31,000. i will tell you that it's a lot more in new york state. and suggested that if we could reduce the prison population by 1%, 14,000 people, the result of the states would be $434 million in savings and i didn't believe the number so i checked the math just to make sure. so i and my colleagues believe that reintegration in communities is facilitated by employment, people need to have intact families as much as possible. children need to be living with their parents, and deployment plays an important role. one study showed 89% of people who violate probation or parole are unemployed at the time. another study shows 58% of

reduction in recidivism efforts are rearrested after someone was employed for 30 days. there's a recent study that was done on a program in new york city, ceo, that has a comprehensive employment program. they take people right out of prison, they get jobs and they are also given a significant amount of training an individual work with them to improve your marketability, to improve the ability to get jobs, to improve their prospects. there was a study done in which there was a control group. one group got the job and all of the training. the other group got access to jobs and given access to community help, but not the same kind of work that the first group was given. the first group came to the program after being out only three months. turned out to be that was a very important issue. what they found was after one year there was actually no

difference, no difference which is fascinating, in earnings and employment between the two. but what they did find was significant decrease in recidivism. people have been enrolled in having a job and having the extra services given to them, the recidivism rate for them went down between 16-20%. a huge chunk i would say. now let me move to another issue involving employment, and that's not ground checks. only one minute? background checks quickly. we know that background checks have become a standard part of what employers use when they hire people, and what we found was that 55%, the society of human resource professionals found that 55% of employers use background checks because they are afraid of negligent hiring. we did a study two summers ago at cornell in the city looking at negligent hiring lawsuits

from 1990-2012 to see if negligent hiring, hiring someone who we should have hired because the fear is you did not do the kinds of you should've done and they hurt a third person to a higher a customer or they hurt another employee. what we discovered looking at the likelihood of being sued, the likelihood that criminal records were involved in those losses -- let me just finish this piece -- we found only 168 reported cases. we used lexus verdict and settlement for this. of that we have found 78 cases where the plaintiff won, or there was a settlement. from the 168 cases we whittled it down to 78 cases where there was a real case of negligent hiring, not just something one of the lawyers are up against the wall like spaghetti to see what would stick. we found 41 cases in all those years that were true of negligent hiring. we been whittled down even

further to see if it was a primary claim to the primary claim was in 28 cases, 19 plaintiffs and nine settlements. we then wanted to know how many of those involved in the records. what we discovered is only 11 out of the 28 involved a criminal record. so employers fear being sued for negligence hiring was really, should not be a great fear. especially when you think about new york, which are so many various employers. there are 588,115 reporting employers for over 8 million employees. when you look at the number you see it's negligible. the last thing i'll say as my time is up is that when we did this study, one of the things we were not able to see is whether, in fact, any of the employers took into account the requirements of our law, what we call 23-a which requires an analysis if someone has a

criminal record and you've done your due diligence and a criminal record, the presumption is it will not be admitted into evidence in a negligent hiring lawsuit. so the 23-a factors are very much like the eeoc guidelines which i'm sure we will talk about later. thank you. >> thank you, esta. [applause] >> scott, do you want to give a prosecutor's perspective on this issue of collateral consequences? >> thank you. thank you for inviting me. always a pleasure when you're here. on the westside, he's a big deal. a u.s. attorney speech take all the time you want, scott. [laughter] >> but i'm just, i met the teleprompters are gone because we were at dinner last night with two of my heroes, dan

donovan a staten island, we're talking about running for office, burns, did you run for attorney general? how did that go? i can trace back to a loss. 1996 and bob dole was running for president. he came to salt lake city and i drove up from a very, the little town i lived up to mount pilot and i was so excited i was going to meet bob dole. i found out later he was not doing well. so orrin hatch bailed on the. he was supposed to be introducing. senator bennet, got busy with its constituent issue. great, three-time governor, secretary of health and human services, big deal, well spoken. they go she couldn't make it. he got stuck in traffic. salt lake city, got stuck in office? burns, you need introducing. i'm going to introduce bob dole? there's like 500 people.

no shit. i walked up there. i remember what should i say? this is easy. it's on the teleprompter. just read what orrin hatch was going to say. i said, oh, that's what that is? state of union -- i thought it was just to keep the president from being shot. [laughter] i would've as a kid, i could never be president because abraham lincoln said, -- how did you remember that quick they were reading it. and so just as i'm going out, greg who knew me, orrin hatch advanced icon he grabbed and he said, burns. what? don't blow this. don't have live. don't go off. i said i won't. he said i'm serious. this is bob dole. read it word for word. now i'm nervous. all right. he came up, bob dole, how's it going? good. azure campaign going? not too well.

unlike, you either, buddy. so the words came up and i said welcome to salt lake international airport. pause. today, it is my distinct pleasure, pause -- [laughter] to introduce to you a son of kansas, applause. the next president of the united states, bob dole, applause. [laughter] and he said, who are you? [laughter] it didn't go that well but i wanted to try it. collateral consequences, first introduced to me on a panel made a year, year and a half ago and i googled it, did deep research, read about it, tried to apply it to my life as a prosecutor for 15 years and the world that we live in. i was on the panel. i sat at the end. we have the aclu and amnesty international and i'm sure

others. they talked about how terrible it was and the city -- was going to be deported. wasn't told about it and it's a big deal. i think everybody agreed if you're going to be deported it's a big deal. as they went on the panel i thought, i must have gotten the wrong case. he didn't fill out some paperwork. you've been in this country 30 years. a family man, a good man and they didn't even call him. i had to go back. because when they got to me, i'm like i must have the wrong case. this guy was in kentucky and had over a ton of marijuana in the back of a tractor-trailer and got arrested. that's not a minor offense, little deal, just fill out some paperwork and he was not a citizen of the attorney. i don't know about you but if i'm in guatemala, mexico or anywhere else with a ton of dough, i figured to be a lot of consequences and i would take he would as well.

i think they're on the panel tried to bring some common sense to the discussion which was how far do we go. i was shaking my head because some people were honestly talking about putting in the plea agreement, let's each go back, you've got new york, candace, you take texas, and find out all of the consequences that are collateral to conviction interstate. some of them came back with 385 collateral consequences that were going to put in the plea agreement? i don't know how me have you been in a real courtroom trying a real case but can you imagine going through the plea agreement? you can't groom a dog in montana. you can't play harmonica in maine. you can't, you know, and some of it we all know, possess a gun, that's a big deal to certain people that kansas is head of our domestic violence program for the past 20 years and some guy is a with his wife for the third time and is convicted of domestic violence, and they will do get upset.

by god, under the second amendment i want my gun. don't they? they scream and holler and so i think what we have tried to do as a national district attorneys association, i've had the pleasure of serving under great president this last year, henry garza of texas, is talk about collateral consequences and what's reasonable and what isn't in our lives but also remind everyone that in the united states, there are some 40,000 prosecutors, 2500 elected, prosecute 97% of the criminal cases in this country. when general holder stands up and talks about these programs and addressing issues, it's good that naag is good, it's good to india is a because in the city of philadelphia in six months they prosecute more felony cases than all the federal judges, all the federal prosecutors, dea, atf in an entire year. ..

she was all excited. had a tazmanian devil sticker in it. she got personalized license plates and she was kind of a frumpy girl and it helped with her confidence at school. she had some friend over to show her the truck. this guy abducted her and her

friend, drove them out into a rural area outside of perry, oklahoma, which is already rural. had her friend dig a grave. had her stood in the grave. took a shotgun and shot her. she fell down in the grave. went back to the truck, oh, bod, please, god, no. fixed the shotgun. went back and shot her again. she fell down. he and his codefendants is laughing, that bitch is tough, man, she won't die. she is laying there in the grave. got her friend to start covering her with dirt. and the friend said, she is not dead. she is still alive. you bury her. so he buried her alive. i don't know, it is kind of hard for me to get into great detail when they call about the botched oklahoma and combination of drugs and did he lien all the way up or was it like a foot up. i think what we need to do in this country, talk about

collateral consequences, talk about defendant's rights, some 20, 25 carved out in the constitution recognized for criminal defendants. how many constitutional rights for victims? do we talk about collateral consequences for victims? they don't even have a constitutional right to be present during a hearing. doesn't say that anywhere nor interpreted by the supreme court. or to be told when somebody who raped and killed their daughter is getting out of prison on parole. there is no right for. that. but here we are, in washington, d.c., and we're, you know what? the race thing? that is not right. i think we all agree that an african-american applicant and white applicant doing a background check and they have similar criminal records and white guy gets called back and the african-american doesn't or hispanic, that is not right. those are things that we should change. and i got a buddy in atlanta, probably one of the biggest philanthropists in the state of

georgia. in 1982, he had small amount of cocaine, followed him all his life. that is not right that he should -- i don't know that we do it wholesale. i'm getting on a soapbox and i'll sit down, general. richard jerome, at pew we have lively discussions about this whole clemency thing. i'm like, really? so we have, and, honestly, i would be open to hear your couldments later but we have federal prosecutors, federal law enforcement, investigate, arrest people, charge them with crimes. they go through the system, either a jury trial, trial before a judge or negotiated plea agreement. get sentenced, pursuant to a law that congress, equivalent of our states who pass these laws. then they go to prison. now we have the executive branch saying we'll have highly-trained assistant u.s. attorneys cull through these. bill fitzpatrick -- i'm a republican. woman that was a democrat nominated to be a federal judge.

i couldn't carry her purse. this woman was bright, brilliant, incredible background. she gets slapped down to be a federal judge to sentence these people, like nine years ago, as part of her job as a prosecutor she argued x instead of y in a gun case. so then the nra comes out, oh, she is against guns. she can't be a federal judge. but now we're going to have u.s. attorneys, wholesale by the thousands supplanting their judgment for our criminal justice system under this thing called clemency. i think he should get out. i think he should get out. new rules, they have to be over 10 years. whatever the conditions are in my judgment, they are now saying, the executive branch knows better. we're now coming in with these really smart assistant u.s. attorneys and we'll let them out. we're going to give them clemency and, i don't know, jerome said, i said who else has done that? i always thought it was like

tiffany's, you know when we fix horrible case, and now it is going to be like walmart. now we'll bring in thousands of them and president will exercise his right of clemency. to me nationwide it seems like our discussion has become, defendants rights, collateral consequences, let's figure out a way to help them before they get in. help them while they're there and then when they get out, but we don't talk about victims, people that have been thrown in the trash. people that have been raped and burglarized. people who are family members of stephanie neman of perry, oklahoma. it doesn't come up. we need to start talking about the collateral consequences of the victims of crime in america. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, scott, for living up to all my expectations about what you would say.

[laughing] >> didn't swear that much. a little little. >> general guarranty. >> thank you for sugar coating that, scott. , i'm not a career prosecutor. though, in my state, i do have responsibility for all the district attorneys and criminal attorneys and so we, it has been a bit of a learning experience. we have something called the criminal justice working group is similar to what general van holland was describing, an inneragency group. we have no funding but it is co-chaired by myself and the justice on the alaska supreme court. but public defenders are part of it, court system, corrections, involved community agencies and they're involved in the process. i think there is a group of maybe 30 of us and we meet several times a year to talk about all these issues. you know i was struck by the fact that, we turn around statistics but the one that caught my attention was the u.s.

has approximately 5% of the world's population yet we house 25% of the world's prisoners. and, at least in the alaska, 60% of our incarcerated individuals are non-violent offenders. they're not the people that scott was referring to, the vicious murderers and so on. so, and, there is a cost associated with incarcerating them. our state, we just opened a new prison last year. before that we housed a number of prisoners in colorado and through private contracts and so we brought all those people back home. but, it seems to me there is a transition occurring and general holder referred to it i think that, that's happening in the sense that people, including conservatives, fiscal conservatives, fiscal hawks are realizing there is a cost to being tough on crime and it's a

cost, not only to state government but to society as a whole. and so, just in our state, which is very large, we have a small population, we tried to tackle this and one of the first things we did was try to get an inventory. we heard about collateral consequences and there's project going on, national inventory of collateral consequences of conviction project that's i think funded by the apa and administered by the national institute of justice as i recall but we contacted them and they, we have some legislators who are interested in it. i was interested in it. as a result the letters we sent, they moved us to the top of the list for some reason to try to get this information. so they did take a look at our state and lo and behold we have well over 500 collateral consequences in our statutes and

in our regulations just in alaska. and that doesn't count all, a number at the federal level as well that would apply obviously to state prisoners. local communities, as it turned out have their own little nuances on some of these consequences, whether it would be getting a taxicab license whatever the case may be. so, just stunning to me the scope of it. now, many of them are licensing anything that's, that's licensed by the state, morticians, nutrition its, hearing aid dealers and whatever the case may be. i mean there is a number of collateral consequences i don't think that are material in the sense of the discussion we're having here today, that people, that, coming out of the system, out of prison aren't going to be affected by them. they could if they happen to choose one of these more obscure professions but by and large i don't think they are but do

have, people that work in liquor industry, cab beret licenses need to work to get a license to zoellick core or be a bartender or so on. that would be an area that could be obviously affected. commercial driver's licenses, an area that people could end up trying to seek a thank you job in. commercial fishing is a big industry in our state and need a license for that. and so, these convictions, all affect people's ability to get back to those jobs. and so we have been, been studying the issue and taking a symptomatic, typical of what other states have as well. but. we have variance process and that is true for many states as well. the division of health and social services, licenses, main

licensing body in our state. so they have a program subject to variance and we learned about, average, maybe 10 to 20 variance requests are received every month from people who are employers who want to hire somebody who has got a record that would otherwise be barred under the law or applicable regulation and they take about a month to process on average and many types the time delay, not all the required paperwork has been turned in initially. so they have to send back and get some additional information. they take about a month to process and about 75% of them, the applicants, applications are received are granted. so, there's some progress there. we also learned that for instance, commercial drives licenses, this is a little counter intuitive to me, but we have maybe 35,000 individuals with commercial driver's

licenses in alaska. the number of people, and they, they, revoke less than 1% of licenses on an annual basis because of a criminal conviction. so again, something i thought might be higher number is actually in practice not that high. and so you are kind of left wondering what is the impact? i think intuitively we know that it is important for people when they get out to have some options. in our state, i can't speak for the national average of other states but about 60% of our population is rearrested within three years after they get out. and so, that is one of the main goals of our, working group. and is just trying to reduce that recidivism level. so we do think that creating

opportunities is that are reasonable. not for the vicious criminals and the vicious, violent felonies and so on, those peel will have to carry around those, they have to carry around those convictions forever and with good reason. but there is many, many, this large subset of non-violent offenders, drug offenses and son. those people can be violent and they can be bad people. i think we have to recognize that as well. but we're looking at trying to create opportunities for them. the other interesting thing under federal drug felonies for example, you can't get, you have a lifetime ban for food stamps and temporary assistance under the federal program. states can opt out of that or they can minimize, moderate the ability of the person to become eligible again. but in our state, we're one of 11 states that have not changed those. so we still enforce the federal

ban. now these are federal monies, folks. i think the feds also pay for administering program in the states or reverse the states. so, but think about it. you get out of, you've got a family and, get out of prison and offense that bars you from getting those federal benefits. it can be hard. it can be harsh. another statistic i read between 1991 and 1998 the number of kids who have had a parent incarcerated in a state or federal facility has increased over 100%. so kids, i mean families need a way out and people getting out of the system need a way to support their families. so these, but our state is very conservative and we've not altered or changed that, the federal law. we have not opted out i should

say and allowed people to regain those benefits if they meet certain conditions. we're taking a look at, the next step in what we're doing anyways to try to come up with calling as working name, certificate of completion. there are over 500 statutes and regulations. it is really a patchwork, a process. i mean there's no, hardly see any rhyme or reason through it when you go through it and it just happened when the laws were changed or enacted whenever that was and they created these consequences. a certificate of completion is intended to, and the details and it is not legislation. we're still trying to workon it. if you have completed your sentence and completed your rehabilitation and paid any restitution and maybe a certain period of time passes buy you get the certificate, issued by a court possibly or a commissioner and then you have something that

you can take to an employer. that employer hopefully would regardless of race would hopefully consider you as eligible and would give you a job if you're entitled to it and background for it. so, it's similar to what the other major effort out there, which is done by the uniform law commission. it is called the national collateral consequences of conviction act. it is a model act and it approach this is issue on a number of levels. one is, first of all come up with an inventory of all these consequences and this, part of the act seeks to establish some causal connection between the restriction, the collateral restriction, whatever it may be, and the offense. you know, for example, looking at our state, commercial fishing licenses if you were convicted

of a theft or crime involving dishonesty you could have your license commercial fishing license revoked. well, i mean i don't know about the connection there between crimes of dishonesty and theft and commercial fishing license but this, this uniform act that was proposed would try to impose some kind of rhinable restriction reasonable causal connection between the collateral consequence and the crime that the offender was guilty of. so i think that's a step in the right direction. this national act, uniform act, i don't believe having more recent information, but a couple years ago had not been enacted anywhere in total but one of the features we do like in the uniform act it has what is called a certificate of, there's another name for it but similar to what i'm talking about, that if you finish the program and if

you served your time and served your sentence you have this certificate that can, that you can use and to show, you know, as proof that you've been through the system, you're worthy, you paid your debt to society and should be considered along with everybody else because the numbers are getting so overwhelming. the, so we're working that direction. the other major thing that has happened in our state which is very topical right now this expungement of records. we have something called court view. in our state, i'm sure other states have similar system but it records arrests, convictions, acquitsals basically your record this last session conservative senator got through a bill to require expungement of arrest records if you were simply arrested, there was no follow-up charge and acquittals. and, it is on to the governor's

desk now and got a fair amount of scrutiny and, i think with reason. people who were acquitted, doesn't mean they're innocent. it means they're not guilty. the prosecutor did not meet its burden of proof. i for one have a few misgivings about expunging records of acquittal. arrests something else, i think that is a fair question but the idea being, we heard these instances already these things follow you around once they get into court view for the rest of your life and many, the public can access it. it is not that complicated. you go in your computer. so without more explanation and employers, if you see somebody with an arrest record, you don't know what it is, you don't know what the circumstances are, could be a mistake in identity. could be totally unfound. if you have got a guy without an arrest record, applicant, just saying for myself, being

perfectly honest probably going to go with the guy with no arrest record. that is another front where progress is being made but not without controversy. a number of these measures have been vetoed. number of states tried to pass them have been vetoed. one in our state you have to say the jury is still out. i'm not sure what the governor will do ultimately. in any event, very important subject and look forward, i appreciate the comments from other panelists and something we'll have a wrestle with as a society. >> well, thank you, all three of you for your comments. general guerraty raised an issue at the heart of this. philosophically what are we trying to accomplish with collateral consequences? i would propose a two or three-part question. they're not intended to be punitive. they're not intended to be a punishment for the crime. they're supposed to accomplish some additional societal goal,

public safety, deterrents. so i guess, for all of you i would pose the question, are there certain collateral consequences that you feel are more rationally related to public than others? can you, some clearly are trying to garner public safety. and two, is there a deterrent effect? because we know that collateral consequences increase dramatically in the 80s and '90s. guess what, crime significantly decreased, not in the '80s but beginning in the '90s. so are people not engaging in some criminal behavior because, gosh, i don't want to put my license at risk or something like that? so, let's kind of, all three of you, philosophically what are we trying to accomplish? are we accomplishing it? and, you know, which collateral

consequences make sense to you. esta, do you want to start? >> [inaudible] >> not at all. absolutely not. i think the purpose of collateral consequences was for public safety. certainly if you know you're going to do something that violates the law you are going to go to jail, that seems to me a much bigger deterrent than i won't be able to be a an animal breeder someplace or be able to cut hair or any other places where there is licensure requirement, and you have a criminal record and can't perform that function. i think it is for public safety. i think that is the first step. then, does it meet that goal? in terms of all the things we're talking about is individualized assessment. you certainly have people, i don't want them out on the street either, people who have engaged in violent criminal activity, rapist, pedophile, et cetera. we would certainly never wan a

pedophile working at public school, private school, any place where they're going to find children. but for most of these we're talking about is there a relationship between the job to be performed and the criminal act the person was found guilty of and served his or her time. i don't think it's a deterrent at all. i think public safety can only be met where there is this relationship between the job and the license or whether it's driving a car or anything else. >> but you wouldn't have a problem, for example, if you are convicted of a sexual offense, you can not be a school teacher? >> absolutely not, yes. of course. you want to protect our children. >> okay. scott, what are your -- >> i concur. i think in reading some of these across the country, honestly some of them were humor russ. i -- humor rouse humerous.

, no collateral sanction of fifth drunk driving that could not groom a dog. >> right. >> maybe drunken grooming, i don't know. [laughing] as you say i think in the beginning the obvious common sense, real life purpose is to keep sex offenders from being boy scout leaders and, people that are violent out of socially through employment where they ought to not be. i think that is legitimate. i think all reasonable americans would support that. some of them are silly. >> i agree with the rest of the panel and i think, i'm not an expert and there's experts here and i may just be totally stepping in it i think in terms of the reduction of crime occurred been referred to i think a large part is demographics. i mean it is people, you look at 18 to 30-year-old age group and i think you could pretty much

track criminal statistics with how, the size of that population goes up or down and the baby boom that we had after the war and, as that group reached this prime age. so i think, but i agree with what scott and esta said. many are very valid and perfect sense. none of us would advocate getting away, but it's a juggernaut, it has gotten, in my state alone, well over 500. i don't think that is reasonable. >> you know the interesting think about it, it is the legislature that created so many of these collateral consequences. one of my frustrations is, it's the legislature that wants to pass a bill suggesting that courts advise people of all these collateral consequences. why don't they eliminate some of the collateral consequences? seems to me would be a more appropriate way to address it. okay, esta, you got to understand on this panel you've

got some state guys and local guys. >> yep. >> we don't entirely trust the federal government, okay. >> i gathered that. >> okay. i got to tell you, some of us have an adverse reaction when the eeoc puts out guidance suggesting it is inappropriate for employers to ask about criminal convictions on a initial job applications. for those of us who are interested in, you know, whose job it is to preserve public safety, we kind of have a general sense there is some relationship here. employers ought to have some idea of criminal background if they're going to hire someone. so what is eeoc trying to accomplish here? >> okay. well, first of all, let me be clear. the eeoc didn't say you couldn't inquire about someone's criminal

background, convictions. that is not what the eeoc guidelines talk about. first of all, the eeoc has protected classes age race, national origin and disability. what eeoc is looking at theory of disparate impact. when you have a neutral rule that has disparate impact on a group. it could be a rule that you didn't at all intend to discriminate but indeed ends up discriminating. one easiest to think about, i will get to your answer, i problem miss you, the one easy to think about is height in the police department. there used to be a height requirement in new york and it had a disparate impact on women latinos and asians getting positions in the police department because we couldn't meet the height requirement. so that's an example of a neutral rule that has a disparate impact. what the eeoc is saying there is

disparate impact on minorities on african-americans and latinos. it doesn't say you can't do a background check. it doesn't say you can't ask that question on application. it does say if you have a blanket, neutral rule, that you will not interview or will not hire anyone with a criminal record that is where the problem is. so they're looking at individualized assessment of the person. so not just saying you won't consider anybody with a criminal record but that you will look at that criminal record and analyze it just as you would anything else. their education, whether they meet the requirements of the job. making it, taking a look at it but not a blanket rule. >> okay. either of you have comments about the eeoc guidelines or? >> well, esta is much more versed in this than i am. ban the box, she is very knowledgeable about the a number of states, enact legislation of

the not one of them, one wouldn't surprise me if it comes up, ban employers from having a box on their application that says, have you ever been convicted of a crime. so you couldn't do it at that stage. as i mentioned earlier that is when many of these people are screened out. simply if you got any group of applicants and somebody checked that box, boom. that is expedient thing to do. but ban the box legislation then so, this guy may have been arrested, convicted, he is on your short list. at that time so this person had other qualities that made them attractive for this job and at that point you can inquire. but it is in the context of a face-to-face interview. so it is not that these can never come up it is when they come up and the ban the box legislation is to prohibit them being there in the application but something can come up.

esta is much more familiar with this this is something we looked at in our state as well. i think target is -- one employer did it on voluntary basis i believe out of minnesota. so it's, those groups in retail industry for example i think it is, may not be only one but that is in recent past i recall. >> bad bath beyond signed an agreement with the attorney general in new york state to take the box off. it is not guidelines of ban the box. it is state and local legislation. >> does the attorney general in new york state have a box no. >> i don't know. >> i would be socked if he didn't. >> i don't know. i can't answer the question. but the concept from ban the box comes out of the americans with disabilities act. you're not allowed to ask someone in hiring situation until you make conditional offer of employment until i need

reasonable accommodation for disability i have. the concept you will get to know me, you like me. that you think i'm qualified and then you will do that individualized assessment because i have a criminal record. so that is the concept of behind ban the box. >> scott, where are we going with this? as you know you see more and more movements to have greater advice about, you know, greater advisements about collateral consequences. do you think there's a notion that padilla could be extended and judges and prosecutors are going to have be a lot more focused and actually come up with lists -- where are we going on this whole thing? >> i think that's the real concern in the real world. you know, i just spent the last two days because i haven't done it in a long time, sitting in a courtroom watching how real women and real men try cases in real courtrooms in america and i

was struck by the fact that we forget that 85% of prosecutorses offices in this country have four prosecutors or less. they're really small towns and small counties and seth and catherine in miami and anita alvarez in chicago and bonnie in san diego. across the country, new york, are the rare exceptions. the vast majority of america, a number of people shake their head, you don't believe this, you get out there, they know who their neighbors are. they know the smith kids, they're always in trouble. by god, bobby got arrested again. the collateral consequences in small communities people know who committed a crime and who didn't and what the justices, they have great faith in the criminal justice system and how they look at each individual case. if they're worried, their fear, i went to lunch with the judges, like honest to god, if some really smart person in washington passes this

collateral consequence thing, and we have to plea agreements that are two inches thick and have public defenders that don't make a lot of money have to go out to the jail to sit there for hour 1/2, you can't do this, can't do that. you talking me out of it? so i think we have to be very, very careful. i couldn't sit down here and every time i see the attorney general, last time we spoke, henry was kind enough to set that up, this whole thing about the criminal justice system is broken. too long, too many low level offenders have been locked up and we need to change that. and collateral consequences is one of them. and reentry and -- really? because i would like to come to washington, d.c. once and just celebrate the fact that homicide are down 50%. rape, robbery, burglary, down, 40 and 30% since the, willie horton and you couldn't walk

safely in major cities in this country. we turned it around and nobody mentioned national academy of science report, sometime google bya, bureau of justice assistance recidivism, came out with a study this week. i don't know if you saw it, it is like really high, it is like 70% commit, felons commit a new offense within three years of being released. so what somebody decided a long time ago, smart people in this room, hey, if they're going to continue, have the audacity to commit crime after crime after crime we're going to lock them up, lock them up for a long time i know some people don't like it. we're five times uganda. we'll take it. crime is down dramatically. with this issue and other issues i hope good men and women would reflect and think about it and how two prosecutors that here from new york that try cases every day, how does it affect

their lives when they say people are ready for the next case? >> general geraghty, i spent three of most interesting years of my life running the colorado prison system and what i identified in that was, i think one of the weakest areas of the criminal justice system reentry and what we do trying to bring inmates back into society. does your task force have a particular look at reentry and what are you trying to do? >> we do and i'm not, i don't think we reinvent the wheel. we try to go where others have gone obviously but. we have something called partners in progress which is anchorage-based entry. they're on our task force as well, the executive director of that and they are currently working with a grant of a couple million dollars, three million or three-year project but to

create housing for prisoners as they come out of the system. they have their own rules and stuff like that. we also have reentry task forces in our major communities, fairbanks, juneau, at that leave they're doing something called ready for rent which is a workshop i think our state people are now trying to do and this workshop, i'm not sure how many hours it takes. take people and teach them basic about the landlord tenant situation. what the expectations are from a landlord if you rent a place from them. how to do housekeeping. very, very basic stuff of people who may have been living in the streets or on couches before that. we're trying to do that. a lot of people are rearrested. this is something i struggle with for violating. that's a huge part of in terms

of our population. the conditions are set when they're sentenced and they do the time and then, but they violate. get drunk, high, whatever the case may be. a program that is shown a lot of progress which is pace, project accountability, certain enforcement. i will give credit to hawaii. they had something called hope, a very similar system. people get out typically and violate several times. a prosecutor may allow certain level of violations to build up, revoke, file a petition, so forth. pace is built on the idea, you violate the first time and primarily it's failed drug test, fail to show up for a drug test or fail to show up for a regular meeting with officer, boom.

assemble the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney and will go to jail 72 hours. the idea is to show immediate consequences. that has shown some progress. it has been just going the last couple of years. they implemented one in fairbanks aimed at more than domestic violence offenders. palmer started one as well, 40 miles outside of anchorage. things like that i think are important. they have to be immediate consequences. not severe but something to get their attention to let them know that,. that hopefully will reduce the size of that population because that is a constant, the revolving door people coming back. not just because they commit ad new crime necessarily but they violated.

so in any event we're just following trying to build owning whatever other people have done but showing on promise. >> we have about 20 minutes. see if we have any questions from the audience. the fact whether you're convicted felon or not you're free to ask questions, okay? [laughter] the first volunteer in the back there. >> i just had a question about, oh. i'm mark levin with right on crime. i had a question about what folks think about the idea of allowing prosecutors to waive, i guess a judge could but realistically most cases are plea deals, prosecutor to be able to waive certain collateral consequences? and, i think there might be a fair amount of support in this room but interesting to see what licensing agencies and other bureaucracies at this about that as well. thank you. >> great question. >> that is a great question. i don't know that prosecutors

have the authority to waive them necessarily. that isn't to say they couldn't if they, if they did have that authority. that would be a question i'd have in my mind whether they could waive them right then at time of sentencing. i don't know, i haven't sat through recently the way scott does, go back to the courtroom and listen but how much time judges spend with them either. but it's an interesting concept. think it would be worth studying to find out if there is something they could do at that level but i think that is something, the statute has given that authority to a different agency in state government. as i said, they do process them and most of them are approved. i was pleasantly surprised to learn that. but, could be done by the prosecutor. maybe made, you know, that would be better but i don't know of the legality of it. >> either of you?

>> i think real prosecutors could correct me but in some sense every single day when you're engaged in plea negotiations there is some waiving of collateral consequences by, if you plead to a, i'm not going to have you plead to z because under a you don't get a gun and or, this is, are you going to be a registered sex offender for life? you're only 17. she was 15. if you plead to this other offense i will relief of you that for your life or you can roll the dice and we can go to trial. i think it would be difficult to take statutory consequences and say, you know, i'm the prosecutor. i have the authority to waive your drunken dog grooming. i don't see that happening. >> there was a big controversy in denver several years ago when it was found the denver district attorney was putting a lot of offenses down to a

non-deportable offense for a apparent, primary purpose of making the person not subject to automatic deportation. do you have any notions where these waivers ought to take place in the system? >> since i'm a proponent of individual assessment and looking at the person as they are now, not the record they created. so for example, it would seem to me within state government, within state government a procedure could be set up where a person would apply to have that particular licensing prohibition waived for them based on who they are and then the government agency would be one that would waive it with an appeal. so, for example, i know within civil service in new york there is administrative law judge who hears when waiver is not granted you have the right to appeal. seems to meep that is what belongs in state government where they can actually do the kind of individual analysis that is required that seems to make

sense to me. >> it makes sense the barber board should decide whether the guy is good barber as opposed to prosecutor. >> right. >> makes a lot of sense. okay, back here. >> i'm recently retired from the state supreme court in new york. in new york and probably in other urban areas a family is not entitled to public housing if any member of the family has been convicted of a crime. i think it is probably just felonies but it could be everything. on one hand very sympathetic, one has to be sympathetic to people living in the building don't want a former gang member or a drug dealer moving into the complex. by the same token there is nothing more criminal-genic somebody released from prison with no place to live and i think we all agree.

what efforts have been made to reconcile that particular tension? i don't think individualized focus would really work because you have an immediate need. this person is being released from prison and he needs a home and place to live and living with a family is probably the best option for the most part. on the other hand he needs that immediately. we all know what bureaucracies are and individual assessments just don't, they really take time. i'm just wondering what work has been done in this area and whether you have any thoughts about that? >> if anybody has done any thoughts in the area my guess it is esta so -- >> i have and i worried about the same issue you raise and in terms of a family lives in public housing and parent out and can't go home. what does that mean in terms of breaking up the family. i haven't seen a any particular studies on that so i'm not aware. i know it's a big problem. >> i've not seen studies either.

we, the program in anchorage, i'm aware of partners in progress, they do about 40 to 50 prisoners a day i guess, it fluctuates but they provide them housing. i don't know if it is families. i don't know that detail either. but i would certainly think privatize a prisoner who did have a family when he gets out and they need a place to stay and put them together over individuals. i'm not aware of any studies. i just know the one in anchorage. that is where our major population is based, serves that, a number of individuals. and they, i was informed that, you know, for instance, trying to be flexible with the rules. i mean some, would be kind of axiomatic that no alcohol would be allowed in the premises for example, but will that push people out? maybe giving them more flexibility. so they're experimenting with